JW Insider

I think a lot of people suspected that pretty quickly, especially as their top 3 issues appear to be the same, and as time goes on, even their pet peeves match up. I don't know for sure that JB was "DF'd" from the site, but it's the impression I got because there was some kind of warning, and then he was gone. At this point if they are the same, I don't think it matters in the slightest. But the reason I jump in on this topic is because I don't want anyone to be confused with my use of the term DF. 
According to JB, he was treated as if DF'd in his congregation, even though he was not officially DF'd by a committee of elders. Not all of the reasons for this treatment were clear. Now that you have suspected that 4Jah2me was DF'd, I just figured that the JB story ought to be a reminder that it's always possible 4Jah2me was never DF'd either. 

I feel sorry for Allen Smith. I really do.

I think a lot of people suspected that pretty quickly, especially as their top 3 issues appear to be the same, and as time goes on, even their pet peeves match up. I don't know for sure that JB was "DF'd" from the site, but it's the impression I got because there was some kind of warning, and then he was gone. At this point if they are the same, I don't think it matters in the slightest. But the reason I jump in on this topic is because I don't want anyone to be confused with my use of the term DF. 
According to JB, he was treated as if DF'd in his congregation, even though he was not officially DF'd by a committee of elders. Not all of the reasons for this treatment were clear. Now that you have suspected that 4Jah2me was DF'd, I just figured that the JB story ought to be a reminder that it's always possible 4Jah2me was never DF'd either. 

What amazed me many times is this: Who writes articles, and about whom, and to whom?
Here we have one paragraph about GB. Questions arise. 
Who makes this observations and conclusions about GB??
Who is authorized to make comments about GB and their works??
Why examination about  GB, had been presented in a way, manner, as it is done by "Third Party"?
Is it possible that GB is not able, in power to talk about themselves and gave self evaluation, introspective about own feelings, thoughts and deeds??!! 
What a theatrics for public. They are histriones :))
 

This is remarkable to me—the assumption that there is an obligation to patiently hear out and respond to anyone’s complaints.
Let us assume that 4Jah2Me has a complaint (I mean, he was DF’d (I think) for something) that he pushes and pushes and pushes to the point where he gets tossed out of the JW organization. He then engages TTH on the WNMF, pushing his complaint here, and simply assumes that TTH will open the door that elders have shut—patiently hearing him out and providing satisfaction after those unknown elders have demonstrated by their discipline (that he has rejected) that it cannot be done.
It’s not happening on my watch. What! This is a courtroom for malcontents to conduct cross-examination? I’ll respond and provide “actual information” any way I like.
What is the purpose of this forum? As far as I am concerned, it is the purpose of anyone who carries the ball. JW.org has a purpose. Tomsheepandgoats.com has a purpose. AlanF’s blog (I think he has one) undoubtedly has a purpose. But this one? @admin is not a Witness, nor I think anyone to whom religion is a top concern. His purpose is to indulge a hobby, keep abreast and comment on current events, and generate some advertising revenue. He has several times weighed in to the effect that he is dismayed and fed up with the quarreling that goes on here, but it is traffic, after all. Mostly he deals with other areas of his website.
@The Librarian (that old hen) is a Witness that I have described as an avant-garde one. She posts things both controversial and non-controversial and I would not be surprised if she was once resolving a crisis of conscience, and though this forum, has steadily moved toward loyalty to God, instead of away like AlanF. She would probably like to see more adherence to topics, but in the end, I think she is happy to see a good witness given, and that cannot usually be done by letting malcontents control the agenda, though JWI does attempt it and sometimes succeeds.
I could be wrong, but I think she is stuck with me, and she knows it. I may be a bad pupil, but after all, I am her pupil and I think she stands by me, even as she shakes her head sometimes. The purpose of this forum is whatever I want it to be when I have the ball—it is a human institution, and no more—and then others get the ball and the purpose becomes whatever they want it to be. Selfish? Sure—but why not? The unselfish channel for spiritual things is jw.org. “Please tell me what you don’t like about JW.org so I can smash you over the head with it,” say several obtuse opponents. I don’t think so. I’ll spill when and to the extent that I see fit. I am an apologist—not a “disgusting” one, like that fathead states, but one who strives to do what the word itself means—defends.
The old hen only has two genuine Witnesses on the controversial threads that reliably comment, and one of them is a little bit squirrelly—which one is in the eye of the beholder. Then there is a second buttressing level of 4 or 5 persons who are solid, but they also have lives to lead and most of them disappear for weeks or months at a time. I don’t think she’s ever going to mess with JWI or I, because if she does, she has very little left to represent JWs and she becomes simply another undisguised apostate website—which I don’t think she wants. So we two set the “purpose” here to a large extent, and our intents are not the same. He takes the topic in one direction, and I wrestle it in another. 
Someone from the second tier will have to step up to the plate if either of us go and I don’t think they have the time. Nope. It is my forum here, now. It will do what I want it to until someone else takes the snap. 
Will that someone be AllenS, who (I think) resurrects himself at will with myriad names, all displaying the same unusual combination of qualities, even inspiring guesswork as to who he really is? Is he an informed, though paranoid and cantankerous, brother of undefined standing? Is he an opposer who wishes to make JWs look bad by posing as one and showing intolerance, incessant bickering, and unreasonableness? Is he a genuine brother so determined to shut down “apostasy” that he floods the site with such unpleasantness that anyone who doesn’t drink unpleasantness as the elixir of life will flee the scene? Who knows? But he has as much right as anyone to carry on as he does, until the Librarian tosses him, which she has done, but there is hardly any point because he just pops up in another alias.
This is a lawless place. One must know that going in. Nobody really knows who’s who. AlanF, who surely must be one of the most unpleasant persons to ever walk the planet, has somehow picked up the notion that I am Vic Vomidog. With John Butler being “DFed” (says JWI—something I did not know), I am once more heading in the direction that 4Jah2Me is really a reincarnation of him. “Can’t you just accept me as me?” he says. No, I can’t. I mean, I can entertain the possibility, and I would rate it at about 60%—really quite high—but he surfaces with identical peculiar reasonings and even some exact words of John B, so I reserve the possibility that they may be the same.
It’s a frontier. It’s lawless. Someone else said that it is exhilarating operating in such an atmosphere, and I like that characterization. Still, it sure does consume time, and it would probably do ME good to get tossed.

No. I have sent in a couple questions about parousia/synteleia and a question about other interpretations of Matthew 24, but never about Luke's version.

Then you said:
Unless I'm missing something, this includes contradictory logic. You said that if the WTS stopped DFing for apostasy the numbers would go down. But then your "evidence" is that the numbers go down when there is resentment when they continue to show authoritarianism by DFing for apostasy.
Perhaps you've spent many years on forums where such persons tell their stories, and the cumulative effect makes you think this is very common. Pew Research provides some indication to me that most JWs who no longer believe strongly enough in the value of the Watchtower organization simply drift away. Most are not disfellowshipped at all. Even those who would have been disfellowshipped have apparently (mostly) realized that one need only drift away. Ones that want to make a statement may write a letter or make a scene somewhere (such as an online site or at a Kingdom Hall or Convention). These would be a small minority.
Technically if one isn't out to make a scene it's probably easy enough to answer the elders questions honestly and not be in any trouble. If I were asked "Do you believe that Jehovah is using the Faithful and Discreet Slave?" The answer would be an easy and straightforward "Yes!" Technically the same goes for the Governing Body, just as Jehovah is able to use any group of elders, or publishers for that matter. Wherever 2 or 3 are gathered in Jesus' name, there he is in their midst. And of course anyone who has doubts about a doctrine should be able to humbly admit that it is a matter of not being able to understand the current doctrine in question, but make it clear that you don't want to make an issue or cause contention inside the congregation. I'm guessing that a humble attitude would solve 90 percent of these problems that might otherwise lead to DFing.
For me, the acceptable replacement is a humble admission that after getting things wrong over and over again on chronology, that we simply follow Jesus' advice to give up on chronology. At least the kind of chronology that is used to try to predict the time period for the generation that will see the end-times scenario.
I agree that there should be a way to provide constructive criticism that isn't immediately seen as a kind of "running ahead" of the organization. Of course, if you look at all the ideas people get, you can understand that the Governing Body are afraid of the chaos it could unleash if everybody started writing about their own opinions. There are a few who have dropped by this forum with ideas that would make everyone cringe as they go off the deep end of mysticism, gnosticism, chronology, numerology, etc.
I hate to admit that I had absolutely no idea who Jay Hess was until I just now looked him up. I probably saw the name before, but I typically tune out those who spend so much time on Trinity, worship vs obeisance, etc.
Disagree. We were talking about DFing for various forms of disagreement that the Society has traditionally treated as apostasy. I believe the Bible supports some of this DFing, as you seem to admit, too. We would also be individually responsible for our own "marking" and choice of "fellowshipping" avoiding "bad associations" even among those who call themselves a brother. But we don't IGNORE most forms of bad conduct. The elders are to watch over the flock, and give good counsel when they learn of bad forms of conduct. We shouldn't make up rules about six months of shunning, or one year of shunning. And no one should enforce shunning for another person. You make a good point that the right way to train a good conscience is to be allowed the responsibility of using that individual conscience -- but this does not mean that strong counsel and guidance should not be in order for those whose spirituality is drifting due to their conduct or their associations.

Thank you for your good research.  I admit - since I last looked at these things I have been looking at other subjects....  You are welcome to correct me where I err. 
My friend, this is only a wish these days - justice is becoming a thing for the rich only who can afford good lawyers and get off.  An arabic word describes it perfectly THULM....... it means injustice but the consonants also stand for darkness.  As moral darkness descends on this world I am afraid that suffering is going to escalate because injustice will prevail.
I met an African woman in field service here who was trafficked to different countries because she did not keep quiet about the children taken by the United nations.  She was working at a school when the UN came and said they will look after the children...... and took the teachers with them.  A few days later she found the teachers in jail and the children missing.  She kicked up a fuss  and to quiet her down they took her into custody.  They sent her to an Islamic country and told them she was a criminal, hoping she would be killed..... but instead, they listened to her story..... 
High-up organizations are involved even some of the American Charity foundations.

You must be reading something into this that isn't there. The quote I think you were trying to remember is probably this:
*** w17 February p. 26 par. 12 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. . . .Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food.
 

When AlanF distorts Watchtower history, I'll call him out on it. But you have said that I did not read Russell's book correctly. You pointed out how, but you were wrong about it. Russell did believe he was of the High Calling and therefore found it appropriate to refer to those with him sharers in "our High Calling," an expression he used dozens of times. He even explained how, while faithful, he was "perfect" and acceptable and justified in this calling:
Therefore because God has a "better thing" for us—our high calling to joint-heirship with Jesus Christ our Lord,. . . . so when we come to realize that we are justified we esteem it a privilege to "present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service." It is acceptable because it is holy; it is holy because it is justified; it is justified because Christ died.
To your second question I reply: It certainly is true, as you say, that none but perfect beings can keep God's perfect law, and I will go further and add that none but perfect beings are acceptable with God.   But as we have just proved we are perfect beings, being justified by Christ Jesus and therefore are acceptable with God by Jesus Christ. [R193]
But although you incorrectly addressed a minor point, I notice you avoided the actual point that I made, that Russell, for example, thought it was proper for those of the High Calling to be referred to as "The CHRIST" ("The Savior" "The Mediator" etc.)

Of course he mentioned how the 144,000 are part of the kings and priests going to heaven. And of course he knew of the possibility that he might personally not be "guaranteed" to be remain among that number. But he never said anything about NOT being a part of that number while he was writing articles, sermons, books, etc. In fact, the Watchtower's own BIOGRAPHY of Russell said that he privately admitted to being the "faithful and wise servant." 
Even more, Russell said:
but since the servant mentioned is to dispense food to the other members of the body, his fellow-servants, the term seems to be limited to some particular individual (R3355)
Who do you think this particular individual was supposed to be referring to?
This servant, if found faithful, would be intrusted more and more with the distribution of every feature of Present Truth as represented in the parable, by his being given the dispensing of the food in due season to the household. (R3356)
Can you think what person for as long he was being found faithful, considered himself to be dispensing every feature of Present Truth to the household of faith?
. . . the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his Church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner. For instance, Peter used the "keys" of the Kingdom of heaven at Pentecost . . . . (R3356)
Who might Russell think it is? Hmmm. We don't have to worry about it, he tells us directly:
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. (R3821)
Of course, I think you knew this already.

I should add that the meaning of 'persons who say "I am he" ' is probably best spelled out in Matthew's version:
(Matthew 24:23-28) . . .“Then if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned YOU. 26 Therefore, if people say to YOU, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
It is ironic that Russell put out a book called "The Time is at Hand" AND simultaneously taught that the solution to the "great mystery" doctrine was that those who were of the higher calling, including Russell himself, could rightly speak of themselves as "the Christ." The Christ was not just Jesus, but the full 144,001. Therefore, it was even possible for those who considered themselves of the 144,000, the Bride, the Higher Calling, to refer to themselves as:
"the Christ" "the Saviour" "the prophet greater than Moses" "eternal Father" "the Mediator" FWF was said to have often hinted in the 1940's and 1950's that this doctrine was still in effect. It was one of the reasons that "great crowd" were not invited to the Memorial for several years. But in the 1960's the Watchtower clarified that the expression "The Christ" could not refer to the rest of the 144,000. Even after that point however, books written by FWFranz, including "Then is Finished the Mystery of God" used the expression 144,001, which had evidently been a reference to the older version of this doctrine.
*** w63 9/1 p. 539 Names for Christ and His Congregation ***
“THE CHRIST”
We come now to a consideration of those terms or titles that apply or are used to refer to Jesus Christ apart from his body members. . . .
But what about the expressions “the Christ” and “Christ”? Does the use of the article with “Christ” designate something different from when no article is used? Might it be that, whereas the term “Christ” refers to Jesus Christ alone, the term “the Christ” could also include the 144,000 members of his body? Do the Scriptures support this thought or distinction?
No, they do not. . . .
In fact, the expression “the Christ” of itself at no time includes the members of Christ’s body. So the title “Christ,” with or without the definite article, refers to Jesus Christ, the article serving to draw attention to or to emphasize his office as the Messiah.
And of course there was no little disruption when FWFranz yelled at all of us one morning at Bethel breakfast because a few (somewhere?) had been balking at a recent article that said Jesus was not the Mediator of the great crowd. The much earlier view that had not been repeated in many years was that the 144,001 WERE the Mediator.
 

I believe you.
I worked for the man and know that he wasn't one to respond quickly to questions unless he was sure of the answer already given in the publications. He was a Gilead teacher and my father's KM school instructor, and was known to always look for the official answer. (If there was not an official answer, he saw this as an opportunity to come up with a solution. The research assignments I got from him were for areas where he was trying to develop a topic he could write a "new" article about. But he always wanted to be sure it was really "new" and that he could review anything previously "on the books" for any topic. His 1957 generation was a good case in point. He also wanted to develop a medical-based article tying together the Bible's use of "the heart." )
FWIW, I would have answered like this:
The verse says not to go after persons who say "I am he" AND who say "the due time is near."  On the first point, we could say that we do not say "I am he" in the CONTEXT of Jesus' answer in Luke. "I am he" is most likely referring to "false messiahs." The problem with this is that the idea of "false messiah" in context sets a kind of trap that you point out, in that anyone who tries to predict the closeness of the destructive judgment is making himself a kind of prophet or Messiah, saying that they are speaking for Christ. On the second point: "the due time is near," this would be much easier. Revelation has John stating that the due time is near. (Revelation 1:1-3) . . .A revelation by Jesus Christ, which God gave him, to show his slaves the things that must shortly take place. . . . 3 Happy is the one who reads aloud and those who hear the words of this prophecy and who observe the things written in it, for the appointed time is near. (Revelation 22:20) . . .“The one who bears witness of these things says, ‘Yes, I am coming quickly.’” “Amen! Come, Lord Jesus.”
If we can extricate ourselves from the "I am he" then Revelation 1 & 22 give us the basis on which to say "the due time has approached."

Just because men may or may not apply scripture properly does not automatically mean all elders are NOT appointed by holy spirit. In any case, this is really a different matter altogether. No one can apply scripture perfectly, but they can do their best, however, in the case under discussion, the appointment of elders, men are limited through no fault of their own, because they can only act on what they see, they can't help that. They might be applying the scripture quite correctly, but it's contingent on the person they are considering appointing to actually qualify. But, and we are going round in circles, the elders can only see what is apparent. Therefore logically, if they really do not meet these qualifications, because they have deceptively hidden some pertinent details, or if it was assumed that past sins will no longer occur but they do, then holy spirit was not involved in the appointing, regardless whether men have appointed the person or not. So there are three scenarios, correct appointment,  erroneous appointment, and appointment that is later withdrawn. In the second scenario, the erroneous appointment,  it can happen that a prospective candidate, who is married, is very clever at hiding the fact that he has a lover on the side. Outwardly, he meets all the requirements, and he is appointed an elder. No holy spirit involved there, obviously. Then in the third case, there is the candidate who really meets all the requirements, he is appointed, and it can be said that holy spirit was involved. However, later, that same man acquires a lover on the side, and keeps it well hidden. It is then obvious that he no longer meets the requirements, and holy spirit is no longer involved.
The third scenario illustrates that holy spirit, once given, doesn't mean it can't be withdrawn. Think Judas Iscariot. Similarly, once someone is appointed by holy spirit, doesn't mean that appointment can't be made obsolete, removed. So how would we know? We may not know. But the scriptures say "that which is carefully hidden WILL be exposed".
I don't see how I've done that. What are they claiming that's false? Just because Greenlees was apparently not appointed by holy spirit, but by men, doesn't mean the same thing applies to all of them.
JWS believe that the head of the congregation is Jesus, and that he knows who is who and what is going on, even though men may not know. So we trust that whatever corrections are needed, they will happen.
You mean ex-JWs emailing Angus Stewart?
I am not talking about a theoretical exercise, I am talking about an actual case. I read the whole transcript (all several hundred pages of it).
I can’t comment on cases unless I am able to read all the court transcripts of the case. So you telling me about “sordid details” and “cover ups” is of no real help to me. Although I am not denying that cover ups have happened.
Are you talking about victims BCG, and BCB? Because if you are, then I do not recall any attempts at covering up abuse. But I do recall there being inappropriate handling of the issue, for example for the victim to have to face her abuser.  The ARC identified areas such as that, and others, where the policies of JWS could be improved, and then made recommendations. These recommendations were taken on board and are now implemented, and are part of the JW policy on Child Protection. I am sure you have read it. Furthermore as you know, the ARC was set up in recognition of CSA problems in various institutions, not just JWS.
This sounds like a case of semantics to me. I could say that Julia Child did not direct me, but I allowed her instructions in the cook book to direct me. And if those instructions were detailed enough, then I probably turned out a good meal. However, if I started chopping the onion in quarters, instead of small pieces, as stated in the recipe, then Julia Child would not be there to personally correct me. So if my meal turned out less than perfect, then it was because I had not followed Julia’s instructions properly, regardless whether she was there in person or not. But really, this is what the Bible is. Christians try to follow it as best as they can. The idea of appointment by holy spirit is a scriptural idea and it is assumed that if one qualifies as per Timothy, then it can be said that one is working in harmony with God and his holy spirit in that appointment, therefore to put it another way: the appointment is by holy spirit. I guess you would prefer appointed in harmony with holy spirit, rather than appointed by it. But don’t think I don’t know the real reason why you are bringing all this up. Your point is that saying “appointed by”, somehow makes the rank and file imagine that this is something special, and under direct guidance of God.  But we have already established that this cannot always be the case. (But also, that does not automatically mean that it is never the case). Regardless, Paul writes Christians should be obedient to those taking the lead. This does not mean we are going to obey indiscriminately. I guess because the apostle Paul assumed that he was talking to intelligent and reasonable people, he did not see the need to insert the proviso “unless they are asking you to do something bad” .  Peter understood, when he said “we must obey God as ruler rather than man”. Which brings me to your next point:
No, first and foremost God must be obeyed. So if the GB were to ask someone to do something that is not supported in scripture, or that goes against scripture, no JW should obey.
As I said further above, you might have concluded that, but not me. 
Not only me, but most JWS see evidence of God's spirit not only in their lives, but in the way the organization operates, in spite of imperfections. Sorry to disappoint you. 

You must be reading something into this that isn't there. The quote I think you were trying to remember is probably this:
*** w17 February p. 26 par. 12 Who Is Leading God’s People Today? ***
The Governing Body is neither inspired nor infallible. Therefore, it can err in doctrinal matters or in organizational direction. . . .Of course, Jesus did not tell us that his faithful slave would produce perfect spiritual food.
 

Good, because I know we've had that discussion before. Russell and his associates thought of this as a very powerful and important doctrine that gets partially repeated about a hundred times. Also, partly because they had not moved very far from the Trinity doctrine yet, they put a lot of emphasis on the idea that Jesus was a God (their capitalization, not mine) and that this doctrine put them on the divine plane as Gods. The Watchtower spoke of the 144,000 as "God manifest in the flesh." Based on the way Russell understood the Scriptures he has used, this teaching actually makes some sense. But I know of no other religions groups who were teaching that not only represented the Christ, but who would go so far as to claim that Jesus alone was not the Christ, but that the Christ included his Bride members, the 144,000.
The Christ would therefore include Russell himself, while on earth in the flesh, as long as he remained faithful.
When the world sees you it sees a member of The Christ, not in glory, but in the flesh. R455
Now we appear like men, and as men all die, even as others; but in the resurrection we will rise in our true character as Gods—partakers of the Divine nature (R473)
Our high calling is so great, so much above the comprehension of men, that they think we are guilty of blasphemy when we speak of being "new creatures"—"partakers of the divine nature." When we claim, on the scriptural warrant, that we are begotten to a divine nature and that Jehovah is thus our father, it is claiming that we are divine beings—hence all such are Gods. . . . Thus there is a family of Gods, Jehovah being our father, and all his sons on the divine plane, being brethren and joint-heirs: Jesus being the chief or first-born. [R474]
The Prophet like unto Moses, the great Law-giver, the great King, the great Mediator, will be the foretold "Seed of Abraham," in whom all the families of the earth shall be blessed. . . consists of our Lord Jesus, as the Head, the chief, and all of his faithful elect Church as members . . . [R2859]
I never mentioned or implied any kind of guarantee, because I never had that impression myself. So sorry if anyone got that impression. Russell taught that he and others like him were "perfect" and "justified" as long as they were faithful, but that no one had a guarantee. They all had to endure to the end. As you point out, in some quotes you provided, this was part of his "faithful and wise servant" doctrine: that although it was a single individual, that God would replace that individual if he proved unfaithful.
I think you are still missing something here. I am not concerned at all with the any kind of "guarantee." That's something you added to this conversation. But it does seem you are trying to imply that Russell didn't even consider himself to be "that faithful and wise servant."
We know that would be a false impression. Just because he didn't publicly claim the title, doesn't mean he didn't make it clear that he was that individual. When he explained that it must be one human individual (at a time) and not a class, he added the idea that people might think him immodest for pointing this out, but he couldn't go against the obvious meaning of the Scriptures. If he didn't think it was himself, then why would he have though modesty should be a factor. He published letters that referred to himself as the "faithful and wise servant" often just called "that Servant." He was introduced at conventions with the title, and accepted the title without trying to correct anyone. And then the Watchtower printed the fact that during his life he had "privately admitted" to being that faithful and wise servant. The Watchtower admits that THOUSANDS of persons got this impression.
This information comes straight out of the Watch Tower magazine and publications. Straight from Russell's pen. And straight out of the Biography of Charles Taze Russell published by the Watch Tower Society under Rutherford. It also comes straight out of the speech that Rutherford gave at Russell's funeral. It would be very strange to claim that anything Russell or the Watchtower said before 1931 belongs to "Freedom Bible Students" or "Associated Bible Students." All JWs who have read the "Proclaimers" book are not going to be fooled by such a claim.

Yes, @Arauna, an excellent challenge for you. Put each “joke” under the microscope. Analyze it with critical thinking skills to PROVE that it is funny or not funny. Just think how enriched your life will be!
It is like when I watch Colbert. I do not just laugh because the plebeians are laughing—what do they know? It might be a trap. I run each joke into the lab for a bevy of tests. If I determine thereby using science that it was funny, I laugh my sides off.
If you actually read things before you worked on your rebuttal, you would see that @Arauna‘s comment has nothing to do with chronology.
It has to do with political developments that she has in position to know that will make you wish the end had come, even should you be on the wrong side.

When AlanF distorts Watchtower history, I'll call him out on it. But you have said that I did not read Russell's book correctly. You pointed out how, but you were wrong about it. Russell did believe he was of the High Calling and therefore found it appropriate to refer to those with him sharers in "our High Calling," an expression he used dozens of times. He even explained how, while faithful, he was "perfect" and acceptable and justified in this calling:
Therefore because God has a "better thing" for us—our high calling to joint-heirship with Jesus Christ our Lord,. . . . so when we come to realize that we are justified we esteem it a privilege to "present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service." It is acceptable because it is holy; it is holy because it is justified; it is justified because Christ died.
To your second question I reply: It certainly is true, as you say, that none but perfect beings can keep God's perfect law, and I will go further and add that none but perfect beings are acceptable with God.   But as we have just proved we are perfect beings, being justified by Christ Jesus and therefore are acceptable with God by Jesus Christ. [R193]
But although you incorrectly addressed a minor point, I notice you avoided the actual point that I made, that Russell, for example, thought it was proper for those of the High Calling to be referred to as "The CHRIST" ("The Savior" "The Mediator" etc.)

Of course he mentioned how the 144,000 are part of the kings and priests going to heaven. And of course he knew of the possibility that he might personally not be "guaranteed" to be remain among that number. But he never said anything about NOT being a part of that number while he was writing articles, sermons, books, etc. In fact, the Watchtower's own BIOGRAPHY of Russell said that he privately admitted to being the "faithful and wise servant." 
Even more, Russell said:
but since the servant mentioned is to dispense food to the other members of the body, his fellow-servants, the term seems to be limited to some particular individual (R3355)
Who do you think this particular individual was supposed to be referring to?
This servant, if found faithful, would be intrusted more and more with the distribution of every feature of Present Truth as represented in the parable, by his being given the dispensing of the food in due season to the household. (R3356)
Can you think what person for as long he was being found faithful, considered himself to be dispensing every feature of Present Truth to the household of faith?
. . . the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his Church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner. For instance, Peter used the "keys" of the Kingdom of heaven at Pentecost . . . . (R3356)
Who might Russell think it is? Hmmm. We don't have to worry about it, he tells us directly:
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. (R3821)
Of course, I think you knew this already.

When AlanF distorts Watchtower history, I'll call him out on it. But you have said that I did not read Russell's book correctly. You pointed out how, but you were wrong about it. Russell did believe he was of the High Calling and therefore found it appropriate to refer to those with him sharers in "our High Calling," an expression he used dozens of times. He even explained how, while faithful, he was "perfect" and acceptable and justified in this calling:
Therefore because God has a "better thing" for us—our high calling to joint-heirship with Jesus Christ our Lord,. . . . so when we come to realize that we are justified we esteem it a privilege to "present our bodies a living sacrifice, holy, acceptable to God, our reasonable service." It is acceptable because it is holy; it is holy because it is justified; it is justified because Christ died.
To your second question I reply: It certainly is true, as you say, that none but perfect beings can keep God's perfect law, and I will go further and add that none but perfect beings are acceptable with God.   But as we have just proved we are perfect beings, being justified by Christ Jesus and therefore are acceptable with God by Jesus Christ. [R193]
But although you incorrectly addressed a minor point, I notice you avoided the actual point that I made, that Russell, for example, thought it was proper for those of the High Calling to be referred to as "The CHRIST" ("The Savior" "The Mediator" etc.)

Correct. I was not implying the Awake! Articles were submitted as a defense for or against legal standings. I submitted them as a realization into certain implications and dangers attached to the action of child abuse.
The term “grooming” was added as a substance to the broader types of child abuse in 2009 by the U.S. federal mandate.
The comparison of the two was to illustrate that the Watchtower was well aware of certain conditions existing in society, before the term grooming became part of a legal remedy. Certain concerns were raised here, that made my submission; relevant to that concern.
Child Pornography and Sexual Grooming 2009
 Sexual Grooming
Grooming behaviour can share a relationship with the wider phenomenon of child sexual abuse; research has shown that an opportunity to sexually abuse a child is more likely to emerge following an act of grooming. 30 Grooming can be conceived as a predatory act committed in order to facilitate sexual abuse and, thus, the issue of context – particularly the motivation behind the behaviour – is highly relevant. P.32
 ‘Grooming’ and the Sexual Abuse of Children 2012
The Extent of Grooming
The covert nature of sexual grooming makes it difficult to pinpoint yet alone quantify such behaviour. While the scale and extent of grooming locally, nationally, and internationally is ultimately unknown (Kosaraju, 2008), a range of both quantitative and qualitative sources collectively provide some representation of the nature and extent of sexual grooming. These have included studies of the disclosure process in children who have been abused (eg Hunter, Goodwin, and Wilson, 1992; Watkins and Bentovim, 1992; Berliner and Conte, 1990, 1995; Sas and Cunningham, 1995), of offenders in treatment programmes (eg Budin and Johnson, 1989; Conte, Wolf, and Smith, 1989; Christiansen and Blake, 1990; Elliott, Browne, and Kilcoyne, 1995; Smallbone and Wortley, 2000; Beckett et al 2004; Hudson, 2005) and of both taken together (Phelan, 1995). P.32
 Those articles come to show the Watchtower made a concerted effort to address a danger before it had become an official mandate by law. When parents become the first line of defense for their children, it is important for witnesses to properly do their own research starting with Watchtower publications. This measure of diligence should be part of any caretaker's daily routine.

When speaking with others of a different point of view, it is important to treat them with a modicum of respect. It is important not to taunt and ridicule and insult. Of course, if such is your only object, then it is okay to do these things, but not if your goal is to persuade. It is important to present oneself as cognizant to the laws of civility. That way, in the event that you actually do make a valid point, you find that it is not rejected out of hand by persons who simply resent how ill-mannered you are. My greatest fear is that Alan’s cherished evolution is right and that he is the final product of it. If so, kiss goodbye any future for the human race, for that is ensured, not by big dumb animals with horns ramming each other to prove ‘who’s da man?’ but with ordinary persons of moderate intellectual abilities and superior social skills—the latter of which our boy Alan has not a speck.
Arguably, this point highlighted above is valid. It is not a game-changer, but neither is it ridiculous. It may be that the “apostate” brush paints far too broadly and many regarded as such do not strictly fit the bill. They fit another bill, that of fomenting divisions, displaying an unyielding spirit to the point that unity and progress ceases, elevating self to godhood, or some such woe. It is in the Book somewhere—certainly the overall spirit should cover it.
It is sort of like that StarTrek episode where Picard snapped: “Those Stenchiites have been beating us over the head with that blasted treaty for days! There must be something in it that can benefit us!” There was. Provision in the treaty called for arbitration of disputes, the plaintiff to choose the arbiter, and so Picard chose the Sleepyites, now in the 2nd year of their 20 year hibernation state. For some reason that I do not recall, time was of the essence, and so the Stenchites yielded on their legalistic point.
Legalism only takes you so far, and is counterproductive if pushed beyond that point. It is like looking at those solid electrons that dissolve into mush if examined too closely. @Arauna is right when she concedes that Witness has a huge reservoir of verse, but she is totally unable to put them to any practical use. It is the same with AlanF. Yes, he knows a lot of facts and he shows off with them to the most anal degree, but when push comes to shove, what can he show for them? An ability to destroy a WorldNewsMediaForum thread, and not much more. He, like Witness, is good at tearing down (though in different ways). But can he build? Don’t make me laugh.
He ladles contempt on any who would stick to an arrangement that they know to be fallible. What in the world is wrong with him? Or his disciple, 4Jah2Me, who puts even “make mistakes” and “errs” under the electron microscope and discovers worlds of difference between them! He says—for he has not yet shed everything, as he presently will—that the end is at least ten years off. In that time, God will be able to raise up a pure anointed who represents him without flaw. I say, “Go for it!” Maybe you can start it up in your basement—as a collaboration with Witness. Ten years down the road I’ll take a look, and if in fact, you have pulled off the trick, I will join you.
Meanwhile, I will tell Kim Jung Un to hold off on the nukes, Trump to stop carrying on so others hate his guts, Xi to dismantle social rating and be nicer to those in his camps, Putin to “cut it out,” Greta to just be patient for a few more years. Yeah, go for it 4Jah2Me! I’m sure it will happen that way. Meanwhile, trash the good while holding out for the perfect.
Michael Hart wrote about Plato and his ideal government as realized in his concept of philosopher-kings, notable for their ability to convert their academic book-learning into practical results. The concept has never actually been implemented, Hart said. I wrote that it had been. Anyone familiar with Jehovah’s Witnesses will realize at once that his idealist concept fits almost to a tee their Governing Body.
https://www.tomsheepandgoats.com/2019/01/plato-and-the-governing-body.html
I’m serious with regard to 4Jah2Me. Ten years for God to make a better anointed that has enough Holy Spirit to satisfy him? Fine. Run with it. I’ll stay where I am in the meantime because JWs are quite plainly in the vanguard, even with their blunders. Besides, I don’t know how many of their blunders are actually blunders. I do note that John rejoiced that “SOME of your children are walking in the truth.” That’s a pretty weak statement. Don’t you think he would rather have said, “ALL of your children are walking in the truth?” Were the “some” that left all due to the ineptness of that early Christian governance? Or was it the best that could have been expected then (and now) in the course of letting light shine in a world that prefers darkness? “When the son of man arrives, will he really find the faith on earth?” Jesus asks. “Not if I can help it!” Alan says, with an upvote from 4Jah2Me.
So bring me what you have in ten years, and if it is the same, only minus the imperfections, count on my support. I’ll bolt. I’m not vested here. I am tired of guys who “make mistakes and err.” I want to be where they don’t make mistakes and they don’t err. Get cracking on it, and if there still is a system of things in ten years, I’ll join you.
 
 

Of course he mentioned how the 144,000 are part of the kings and priests going to heaven. And of course he knew of the possibility that he might personally not be "guaranteed" to be remain among that number. But he never said anything about NOT being a part of that number while he was writing articles, sermons, books, etc. In fact, the Watchtower's own BIOGRAPHY of Russell said that he privately admitted to being the "faithful and wise servant." 
Even more, Russell said:
but since the servant mentioned is to dispense food to the other members of the body, his fellow-servants, the term seems to be limited to some particular individual (R3355)
Who do you think this particular individual was supposed to be referring to?
This servant, if found faithful, would be intrusted more and more with the distribution of every feature of Present Truth as represented in the parable, by his being given the dispensing of the food in due season to the household. (R3356)
Can you think what person for as long he was being found faithful, considered himself to be dispensing every feature of Present Truth to the household of faith?
. . . the Lord at the time indicated would specially use one member of his Church as the channel or instrument through which he would send the appropriate messages, spiritual nourishment appropriate at that time; because at various times in the past the Lord has used individuals in such a manner. For instance, Peter used the "keys" of the Kingdom of heaven at Pentecost . . . . (R3356)
Who might Russell think it is? Hmmm. We don't have to worry about it, he tells us directly:
No, the truths I present, as God's mouthpiece, were not revealed in visions or dreams, nor by God's audible voice, nor all at once, but gradually, especially since 1870, and particularly since 1880. Neither is this clear unfolding of truth due to any human ingenuity or acuteness of perception, but to the simple fact that God's due time has come; and if I did not speak, and no other agent could be found, the very stones would cry out. (R3821)
Of course, I think you knew this already.

Feel free. I can't really stay on today anyway. I might keep the computer open and access from a remote desktop on my phone, but I won't really be putting enough effort into answering. If you do feel like taking on AlanF's argumentation, have him sign a waiver that he'll read your whole answer before responding to it. Ithinks sometimes he just assumes what you must have said even if you didn't say it. Hold his feet (if you dare) to the fire, if you will. (Especially if your own itchy feet are contagious.)

I should add that the meaning of 'persons who say "I am he" ' is probably best spelled out in Matthew's version:
(Matthew 24:23-28) . . .“Then if anyone says to YOU, ‘Look! Here is the Christ,’ or, ‘There!’ do not believe it. 24 For false Christs and false prophets will arise and will give great signs and wonders so as to mislead, if possible, even the chosen ones. 25 Look! I have forewarned YOU. 26 Therefore, if people say to YOU, ‘Look! He is in the wilderness,’ do not go out; ‘Look! He is in the inner chambers,’ do not believe it. 27 For just as the lightning comes out of eastern parts and shines over to western parts, so the presence of the Son of man will be. 28 Wherever the carcass is, there the eagles will be gathered together.
It is ironic that Russell put out a book called "The Time is at Hand" AND simultaneously taught that the solution to the "great mystery" doctrine was that those who were of the higher calling, including Russell himself, could rightly speak of themselves as "the Christ." The Christ was not just Jesus, but the full 144,001. Therefore, it was even possible for those who considered themselves of the 144,000, the Bride, the Higher Calling, to refer to themselves as:
"the Christ" "the Saviour" "the prophet greater than Moses" "eternal Father" "the Mediator" FWF was said to have often hinted in the 1940's and 1950's that this doctrine was still in effect. It was one of the reasons that "great crowd" were not invited to the Memorial for several years. But in the 1960's the Watchtower clarified that the expression "The Christ" could not refer to the rest of the 144,000. Even after that point however, books written by FWFranz, including "Then is Finished the Mystery of God" used the expression 144,001, which had evidently been a reference to the older version of this doctrine.
*** w63 9/1 p. 539 Names for Christ and His Congregation ***
“THE CHRIST”
We come now to a consideration of those terms or titles that apply or are used to refer to Jesus Christ apart from his body members. . . .
But what about the expressions “the Christ” and “Christ”? Does the use of the article with “Christ” designate something different from when no article is used? Might it be that, whereas the term “Christ” refers to Jesus Christ alone, the term “the Christ” could also include the 144,000 members of his body? Do the Scriptures support this thought or distinction?
No, they do not. . . .
In fact, the expression “the Christ” of itself at no time includes the members of Christ’s body. So the title “Christ,” with or without the definite article, refers to Jesus Christ, the article serving to draw attention to or to emphasize his office as the Messiah.
And of course there was no little disruption when FWFranz yelled at all of us one morning at Bethel breakfast because a few (somewhere?) had been balking at a recent article that said Jesus was not the Mediator of the great crowd. The much earlier view that had not been repeated in many years was that the 144,001 WERE the Mediator.